Perfect people in Bible


It seems that the following passages state that there are some human beings that are perfect. It also seems that some that were called righteous were also perfect.

I said seems. I am looking to hear ideas and explanations whether that is correct.


These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God. (Gen 6. 9)

All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel [were] of one heart to make David king. (I Ch. 12.28)

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. (Job 1. 1)

[It is] God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect. (Ps. 18.32)

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (lk. 1: 6) [The is Zacharia and Elizabeth]

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. (Heb. 11: 4)


My opinion: “Perfect” in those passages is used in a sense other than “without sin,” or “absolutely perfect.” For example we might say “Dave is a perfect husband,” not meaning that everything about him is perfect.

Also, I don’t take the writings of the Old Testament literally.


I haven’t researched all the verses you listed, but, I recently was pondering the character of Job, using Job 1:1 as the starting point:

The text you cited, read:

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

“Perfect” as a description is often the result of translation that is less than concise…of course that is just my opinion, and I don’t mean it to come off like my opinion is the only correct way of looking at it.

The New American Bible (the one used by many Catholic Churches in the U.S.), doesn’t say “perfect”, but rather “blameless”:

In the land of Uz there was a blameless and upright man named Job, who feared God and avoided evil.

“Blameless”, in the King James Version of the Holy Bible is translated to “perfect”. However, “perfect” can project “spotless”, or “sinless”, posing at least one serious theological dilemma; namely that Job cannot be sinless without granting him a divine characteristic, which is reserved exclusively for the three persons of the Holy Trinity (or through special and abundant grace as received by the Blessed Virgin).

A more appropriate rendering might be of Job possessing “high moral integrity”.

Hope you find this useful.

Peace and all good!


Proper interpretation of Scripture is by the authority of God Himself. Those who wrote the books of the Old Testament were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and the proper methods of interpretation are described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and fuller explanations of the Old Testament by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Surely, Jesus was perfect.



Just looking at the word ‘perfect’ as used in Job 1:1, here is the Hebrew word and definition… As was stated, it doesn’t mean ‘sinless’.

From H8552; complete; usually (morally) pious; specifically gentle, dear: - coupled together, perfect, plain, undefiled, upright.


You should also mention Matthew 5:48. “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The context is “for He (the Father) makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.”

I think it means blameless in terms of being beyond reproach, being beyond the possibility of being held accountable for an imperfect judgment. Being beyond the claim that “it’s not fair”.



I compiled the list many years ago.

The complete list does include the command: “be perfect” and it Luke’s :“be compassionate.”

To all: I thank you for your help. I will keep listening.



So you don’t take the history of the Jewish people literally?


I do believe the historical aspects are accurate as far as possible, considering having been passed down as oral history before being reduced to writing. I’m referring to accounts of occurrences such as the garden of Eden, Noah, Job, etc. I believe that much of these accounts are at least in part allegorical, not literal, as in word-for-word accuracy.

I think (not sure) that this is compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
In any case, it has always been my opinion. If you disagree, fine with me. We all have our own opinions.


The Jewish people don’t believe that certain parts of the bible are meant to be taken “literalistically”. “Literally” means something a little different than what you are talking about among theologians.

Here is a nice explanation of the difference in Catholic exegesis.


Here’s the Greek word and definition for the word ‘perfect’ in Matt 5:48

From G5056; complete (in various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character, etc.); neuter (as noun, with G3588) completeness: - of full age, man, perfect.


Thanks for the link- an excellent explanation!


Thankyou, captainrick. I do like to know other’s opinions on the subject and also reasoning behind it.


Thanks for the link, SMOM. I am aware, but like to get a feel of what others think about the early books of the Bible or how one reads the Bible in general and why. Very interesting article.


To find the pearl of great price and sell all that we have (literal).

The allegorical meaning: one finds Jesus Christ.

The moral meaning: the one trades or barters or sells our human ability to love and accepts God’s ability.

The anagogical: we look forward to our love being completed—heaven, beatific vision.

How to apply this to Noah, tough. Or, I do not have a clue.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit